PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWR vs. BMVP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWR vs. BMVP

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) and BMVP (Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index while BMVP tracks the Bloomberg MVP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWR returned 11.43%/yr vs 9.67%/yr for BMVP. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IWR charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for BMVP.

Performance

IWR vs. BMVP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWR achieves a 14.55% return, which is significantly higher than BMVP's 10.39% return. Over the past 10 years, IWR has outperformed BMVP with an annualized return of 11.43%, while BMVP has yielded a comparatively lower 9.67% annualized return.

IWR

1D
-0.28%
1M
-0.59%
6M
11.19%
YTD
14.55%
1Y
20.25%
3Y*
14.75%
5Y*
8.04%
10Y*
11.43%
ALL TIME*
9.95%

BMVP

1D
-0.14%
1M
2.91%
6M
5.45%
YTD
10.39%
1Y
14.32%
3Y*
12.40%
5Y*
7.27%
10Y*
9.67%
ALL TIME*
2.95%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

BMVP

Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF
$49.65K$64.59K$60.35K

IWR

iShares Russell Midcap ETF
$186.41M$266.84M$222.00M

IWR vs. BMVP - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		14.55%10.37%15.21%17.05%-17.48%22.44%16.93%30.23%-9.10%18.25%
BMVP
Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF		10.39%6.15%17.46%19.03%-16.01%19.38%8.52%13.47%-6.40%20.16%

Correlation

The correlation between IWR and BMVP is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.67

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.81

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.87

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2003

0.89

Over the past year, the correlation between IWR and BMVP has dropped to 0.67 - well below their long-term average of 0.89, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IWR vs. BMVP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWR
BMVP

Technology

18.3%
16.4%

Industrials

17.2%
17.3%

Financial Services

12.6%
16.9%

Healthcare

10.9%
9.8%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%
11.1%

Real Estate

6.9%
5.4%

Utilities

6.0%
5.4%

Energy

5.8%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

4.5%
4.8%

Basic Materials

4.2%
1.5%

Communication Services

3.5%
6.6%

Technology

IWR
18.3%
BMVP
16.4%

Industrials

IWR
17.2%
BMVP
17.3%

Financial Services

IWR
12.6%
BMVP
16.9%

Healthcare

IWR
10.9%
BMVP
9.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IWR
10.2%
BMVP
11.1%

Real Estate

IWR
6.9%
BMVP
5.4%

Utilities

IWR
6.0%
BMVP
5.4%

Energy

IWR
5.8%
BMVP
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

IWR
4.5%
BMVP
4.8%

Basic Materials

IWR
4.2%
BMVP
1.5%

Communication Services

IWR
3.5%
BMVP
6.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Russell Midcap ETF

Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF

Often compared with IWR:
IWR vs. VOIWR vs. IWDIWR vs. SPMDIWR vs. IWNIWR vs. SCHMIWR vs. VXFIWR vs. REGL
Often compared with BMVP:
BMVP vs. MVCAXBMVP vs. VOOBMVP vs. FMDEBMVP vs. VTIBMVP vs. SPMOBMVP vs. SCHGBMVP vs. FZROX

Return for Risk

IWR vs. BMVP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
BMVP
BMVP Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
BMVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BMVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
BMVP Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
BMVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
BMVP Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWR vs. BMVP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

IWRBMVPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.37
1.40

-0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.00
2.09

-0.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.24

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.28

2.15

+0.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.85

6.44

+2.42

IWR vs. BMVP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWR Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is comparable to the BMVP Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWR and BMVP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IWR vs. BMVP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.78%, smaller than the maximum BMVP drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWR and BMVP.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWRBMVPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.78%

-78.13%

+19.35%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.17%

-6.45%

-1.72%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.09%

-15.12%

-5.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.18%

-26.58%

+0.40%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.59%

-39.45%

-1.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.93%

-1.56%

+0.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.76%

-35.96%

+28.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.10%

2.15%

-0.05%

Volatility

IWR vs. BMVP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) is 2.48%, while Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) has a volatility of 3.43%. This indicates that IWR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BMVP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWRBMVPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.48%

3.43%

-0.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.17%

7.30%

+2.87%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.67%

9.97%

+3.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.22%

15.90%

+2.32%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.31%

18.73%

+0.58%

IWR vs. BMVP - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWR has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than BMVP's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWR vs. BMVP - Dividend Comparison

IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, less than BMVP's 1.72% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BMVP
Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF		1.72%1.77%1.58%1.67%1.51%0.56%1.09%0.95%1.44%1.75%1.35%1.02%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		1.16%1.29%1.27%1.43%1.59%1.04%1.28%1.43%1.98%1.52%1.72%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWR and BMVP have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BMVP has higher volatility (3.43%) compared to IWR (2.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWR dropped -58.78% vs BMVP's -78.13%.

On 10-year performance, IWR leads with 11.43% vs 9.67% for BMVP. On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWR has been the lower-risk option at 2.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWR has performed better with a 11.43% return vs 9.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for BMVP.

BMVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.72%, compared with 1.16% for IWR.

IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index, while BMVP tracks Bloomberg MVP Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWR and 0.29% for BMVP.

BMVP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 vs 1.36), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWR and BMVP

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer